Horwill's STOMP and claims the Reds weren't penalised enough

[TOCC]

Given teams can have as little as a 5day turnaround between games and then lost time due to travel as well, I think a 24hr window is a good balance between been long enough and allowing teams enough time to bring in replacements etc...

 

[Richo]

It really depends on what happens in that 24 hour period, doesn't it? If SANZAR conducts detailed video analysis in that time frame it's probably enough time. If they don't pay people to work on Sundays, there's a problem.

 

[Scoey]

That's why the 24hr window is good. Do we really want to give SANZAR the time to go through each and every minute, looking for things to cite?
The teams and players involved in each game know what went on and whether they want to make a complaint. The match officials have ample opportunity to refer something that they picked up also.
There's not a lot that gets through unpunished as it is in this current system so that to me indicates that it's working just fine.

 

[Quick Hands]

On this. I am not keen to run back through the game again but if anyone's got nothing better to do than I would be pretty keen to find out how many points would we have accumulated, had we, "taken the points when they were on offer".

I know we got a ton of penalties, but plenty of those wouldn't have been awarded as they were subsequent to a previous one and, assuming we took the points, we would've been back receiving the kick off. Also, you would need to discount the tries scored from not taking the points.

Considering how hard at times it was to get out of our own half and the fact that a lot of our penalties were partly due to the unrelenting pressure and weight of possession/territory, I'm not certain that 'taking the points' would've won us the game or even got us the draw. Just a thought..

Possibly, but just consider a converted try was only ever going to get you a draw - so the Reds needed to score twice regardless to win the match. Fair enough go for the try first, but after a couple of penalties without scoring, knock over a penalty goal and now you're only 4 behind - an unconverted try gives you a win. When you next get back there, again no problem going for the try, but again if an easy 3 presents itself - you're now 1 point behind. The pressure is now on the Brumbies not to infringe as any kickable penalty is a win to the Reds.

 

[Sully]

Possibly, but just consider a converted try was only ever going to get you a draw - so the Reds needed to score twice regardless to win the match. Fair enough go for the try first, but after a couple of penalties without scoring, knock over a penalty goal and now you're only 4 behind - an unconverted try gives you a win. When you next get back there, again no problem going for the try, but again if an easy 3 presents itself - you're now 1 point behind. The pressure is now on the Brumbies not to infringe as any kickable penalty is a win to the Reds.

Who says you'd get back there? That's the problem with what ifs. They can go either way.

 

[Sully]

In fact I can give you my own what if.

The Reds get a penalty and instead of going for the try they take the shot and are 4 points behind. The kick long and have a great chase and put pressure on the kicker who hooks the ball into touch and the Brumbies have a lineout in the Reds 22. Now the pressure is on the Reds to not infringe!

If you change one thing you have no idea what the actual outcome would be.

 

[Scoey]

In fact I can give you my own what if.

The Reds get a penalty and instead of going for the try they take the shot and are 4 points behind. The kick long and have a great chase and put pressure on the kicker who hooks the ball into touch and the Brumbies have a lineout in the Reds 22. Now the pressure is on the Reds to not infringe!

If you change one thing you have no idea what the actual outcome would be.

I have a feeling that this is the more likely scenario. On Sat night, the Brumbies were far better at exiting their half (once they had the ball) than we were. The last 10 mins were testament to this. It took a big mistake from Mogg to let us out.

 

[Quick Hands]

In fact I can give you my own what if.

The Reds get a penalty and instead of going for the try they take the shot and are 4 points behind. The kick long and have a great chase and put pressure on the kicker who hooks the ball into touch and the Brumbies have a lineout in the Reds 22. Now the pressure is on the Reds to not infringe!

If you change one thing you have no idea what the actual outcome would be.

Of course you don't. The main point that I was trying to make was that the Reds had to score twice to win the game. They were 7 points behind - so even when the converted try comes, they still need to get back there to win the game.

I wan't trying to say exactly what would happen, just trying to present a thought process.

I assume that the Reds were trying to win the game and not going for a draw.

EDIT:

I also assumed that Reds supporters thought that they were clearly the better team and weren't entertaining the possibility that the Brumbies could score again (with 14 players)

 

[Tomikin]

I'm a brumbies fan obviously didn't catch him good as Dan was up trying to go through the reds maul ride again. brumbies throw it out their to stir the pot. Doesn't look good but probably trying to get get position to push.

 

[Paradox]

I have a feeling that this is the more likely scenario. On Sat night, the Brumbies were far better at exiting their half (once they had the ball) than we were. The last 10 mins were testament to this. It took a big mistake from Mogg to let us out.

I think you're right. 3 points to the Reds would have resulted in a kick off and clearing kick from the Reds. The Brumbies would have had the lineout probably in the Reds half and would have started launching raids. The Brumbies were pretty good with ball in hand and got points with each incursion into the Reds half. It was pretty clever stuff from McKensie to just not allow the Brumbies to get field position in the second half but unfortunately for him the tries didn't come. I wonder who will learn the most from the match. Will the Brumbies try more in attack from their own half in the future? I don't think many sides would have been able to do what the Reds did and launch attacks so well from midfield. It was Quade Cooper's passing ability and vision that allowed the Reds to work their way up field. I thought it was his best game of the year and he was MOTM.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think you're right. 3 points to the Reds would have resulted in a kick off and clearing kick from the Reds. The Brumbies would have had the lineout probably in the Reds half and would have started launching raids. The Brumbies were pretty good with ball in hand and got points with each incursion into the Reds half. It was pretty clever stuff from McKensie to just not allow the Brumbies to get field position in the second half but unfortunately for him the tries didn't come. I wonder who will learn the most from the match. Will the Brumbies try more in attack from their own half in the future? I don't think many sides would have been able to do what the Reds did and launch attacks so well from midfield. It was Quade Cooper's passing ability and vision that allowed the Reds to work their way up field. I thought it was his best game of the year and he was MOTM.

So it wasn't poor refereeing or Brumbies cynicism which cost the Reds victory, it was their inability to get out of their own half and score twice. They needed to score twice to win.

 

[smee_again]

he should have got a yellow card

He should have got a yellow jersey

 

[Dan54]

After seeing Gosper on Rugby HQ, I wondered if he wasn't tempted to tweet about Horwill needing to be in front of judiciary, as I though it a little worse than Adam Thomson's that upset him mightily last year!!!